The societal complexity described in Is Africa doomed?? is only half of the story.
The political organization is equally non-evident, if not more so today. Belgium has FIVE governments (don't freak, used to be SEVEN). A federal one (Belgium), three regional ones (Flanders, Wallonia, and one for the German-speaking Eastern region) and a 'special' one, i.e. for the capital of Brussels which is on Flemish territory but has a 90% French-speaking population (apart form the Arabic people).

The fun part here is that the respective governments sometimes overlap in jurisdiction. Often it's not clear whether a matter belongs to a regional or to the federal government, or to which regional one. Note : these regions are NOT strictly based on geographic boundaries, there are parts of Flemish territory where the Walloon government has a say, and vice versa and in Brussels there are issues where 4 of the governments have a say (the federal, the Flemish, the Walloon, and the one for the Capital).

The Belgian system is the totality of this dual societal (previous post) and politico-linguistic compartimentalization, topped with a anachronistic, archaic, above-the-law monarchy. Mind you, in a way it works. There is no denying that. But I think you can imagine the amount of superfluous bureaucracy that is involved with it. I don't think that if I were to guesstimate that the amount of effort of politics and politicians that goes into the system, before addressing a REAL issue, is over 60%, would be far off the mark.

This system addresses the issues of surrealistic, crazy but rich, little Belgium, but I don't think it's exemplary for other nations, except maybe, maybe Iraq.
But certainly not for African nations who are already short of resources.

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

I sincerely apologize, WEB. I find that every time I offer an argument you are so far behind the eight ball you think there is no substance. How am I supposed to explain without educating and therefore looking condescending?
I told you some of these leaders were elected legitimately and you didn’t argue so I figured you realized I was right. Later I realized you ignored that comment, had no idea what I was talking about, and here you are still waiting for examples – I gave you two excellent examples:

1. Charles Taylor who is in recent headline news, easy to find and very relevant to the discussion because I specifically gave you Liberia as an example and he was the legitimately elected ruler of Liberia until 2003. Taylor was forced into exile in Nigeria (a good example of a failed attempt at consociational government, please look into it), he is currently standing trial at The Hague for the torture and slaughter of a couple hundred thousand people.

2. Robert Mugabe, who came to power in Zimbabwe in the 60’s when Henry Kissinger convinced Ian Smith that he was going to have to concede to some “power sharing” system…(like…consociational governments). How this man stays in power is beyond me yet he is, to my knowledge, the longest lasting African leader. Zimbabwe has 2000% inflation, life expectancy of about 35.

In addition to these two examples, I offered a reason why it would be difficult to find electable candidates – which you completely ignored. I specifically asked you where you thought we would find these candidates, which you ignored as if I were asking a rhetorical question. And you continue to ignore it.

The biggest difference between the examples of successful consociational governments and the examples of failures is the availability of basics like food, water, and other resources. If these absolutely essential resources are too thin to be parsed out to sustain life, no amount of negotiation is going to succeed.

Another difference between the successful and unsuccessful consociational governments is the history of violence! Somehow, this has to be gotten over – maybe something like South Africa where everyone stands forward and confesses their sins.??? I don’t know but it can’t be ignored.

Twice you’ve provided examples of consociational government at its best and in all the argument between us and in spite of all my prodding; you never thought to investigate if my “vague” reasoning had any substance. So I will show you and make you feel look like a fool. That is not my goal!

I’d love to discuss this with you. You said my three reasons it wouldn’t work were “a joke” but there is a formula, a criteria, for successful consociational governments and the three basics I gave you do not meet those requirements. How am I supposed to address this without making you feel like an idiot?

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Is Africa doomed??

WEB:“I think that the US coming in there and kicking ass and setting up democratic systems, like we do in Iraq would solve problems.”

Which of my facts/opinions are you disputing? That the violence must be addressed first? That foreign influence has had horrible consequences in the past and we haven’t offered any way to prevent that in the future? That there are few qualified electable people to simply install a new form of power sharing government? That the population density/diversity mixes are not conducive to your suggested form of government? If you think I’m offering fact as opinion, show me where and I’ll tell you where I get my facts and base my opinions. The problem here is that it looks like I really do know more than you and I’M ignorant too. That is my point. Which I address below and you kindly quoted.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Not a problem. I like danielpalos idea. I said that I did and I said why. I think foreign influence must be the beginning of a solution. A multinational effort sounds like a good place to start. This isn’t a pat answer. How would you convince these nations there was anything to be gained? Once you’ve convinced them, how do you make them go away and let African countries rule themselves? We have a pretty rotten history to conquer and are proving, even today, that we care not about what happens to Africa as long as we get what we want.
Read a little further! Pick up again where Ronald Reagan took office and we used a corrupt ruler (guy by the name of Samuel Doe, Taylors predaccessor), to stage an offence against communism. Liberia received more aid than any other sub-Saharan country which was used to bolster the military. Meant to defeat communism, the military was used against its own people. This must be why Charles Taylor looked so good at the time.

Like it did in my example of Liberia. Like it is as we speak in areas like Gabon and equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome and Principe…where we, under the Bush Jr. administration, continue to support ruthless dictators to get at what Bush calls “the Kuwait of Africa”.
Were you aware that African countries now supply 25% of China’s oil? See here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/#2
Did you know that it was largely due to African countries that China regained it’s seat in the UN?
Wrap this foreign influence tortilla up with the PNAC stated agenda and it is clear that future foreign influence in Africa will require very careful planning and strict control on foreign influence.
I specifically cited Mugabe already so maybe you weren’t listening/reading. How can you claim to know about this history and not know the connection between Mugabe and our own government?
How could you possibly know about Equatorial Guinea and not know about our involvement? We are the largest investor in Equatorial Guinea second only to China. Speaking of Equatorial Guinea, did you miss the part about Mark Thatcher’s coup? You know, Margaret Thatcher’s son? Ironic coincidence that the plane he used was a former US military plane brokered by a US aviation company (Dobson), for a very nice price.
You know I know about Amin because I think it was YOUR thread that I specifically named him as my submission for the worlds worst ruler list. I was trying to remember the words to the song…”Idi, Idi, Idi Amin, he’s the greatest ruler”… Perhaps you’ve forgotten.
I don’t know why you want to play this game. It is likely to end badly for you. Do you want me to be direct and tell you why or do you want me to leave you a little space to get out? I will warn you, I’m pretty confident here for very good reason.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

No WEB, you said the US government was unlikely to act. I’m specifically talking about individual citizens like yourself who pretend to give a shit and think marching in with the US army is a good option.
I’m pretty sure that’s what folks think YOU were endorsing which is why I directed you to Thomas Malthus to prevent you from putting your foot in your mouth. People are associating yours and Kingdaddy’s comments as being the same – did you wonder why?
I said quite clearly that the danger is letting our personal feelings of charity be handled by our government who takes that auspicious charity and uses it exactly as they were created to do – politically; to gain a wedge for oil, or against communism, or against the spread of Islam, as the current case may be.
I certainly did NOT say Nation Building cannot work. I said US unilateral nation building cannot work, was a “fucking stupid idea”, and I am firm in that. Again, that is what YOU offered. Shall I quote you one more time for the record since you apparently lost track of your own argument?

Is Africa doomed??

WEB:“I think that the US coming in there and kicking ass and setting up democratic systems, like we do in Iraq would solve problems.
However, we all know that is not going to happen. I don't know how else to make it happen. Ironically, I read a book on Africa by several scholars who actually called upon the world to stop providing international aid to Africa, and thereby for the dictators to rely upon the people and become more democratic. I think that is what Africa truly needs, and I believe that's what I said. Africa needs democracy and stronger political and civic institutions.

Wow, if you knew how much of a realist I was, you'd know how refreshing it is for me to hear myself say that. ”
And here is what my response looked like before you broke it into two parts:
JHC: “The cycle must be broken first. You and I agree on that but not on the methodology to which you offered a unilateral action on the part of the US similar to our action in Iraq.
If a person seriously considered for a second that the United States could march into some country in Africa and begin nation building, I would think that person was incredibly, grossly naive. ARGGHHH! If you think Iraq might be a quagmire, you ain't seen NOTHIN yet! Holy shit batman!" What a fucking stupid idea.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn

Oh I have no problem with your condescension, JHC. I think you do have more knowledge about Africa than I thought. However, you have an inability to marshall what you know about Africa, and you go on paranoid rants, and thus you end up in the same position, looking a fool. I was just trying to give you some useful advice on how to spare yourself, but I see you have disregarded that, so I will move on.

OK, but can you understand that most of Africa's elections are rigged and thus Africa is ruled largely by dictators? I've repeated it for you in the hopes that you'll catch on this time.

Charles Taylor's crimes go back far before his ascent into Presidency in 1997. He committed a lot of war crimes when he was invading Liberia. In any case, Taylor's party held a monopoly of political power in the government, holding 75% of its legislative seats. How is that power-sharing and consosciationalism?

According to the 1980 Constitution the Zimbabwe Senate gave half of its seats to whites. In 1987, I believe, Mugabe abolished the Senate. Mugabe had also combined both of Zimbabwe's politcal parties into one. Now Zimbabwe is a state populated mostly by Africans who are poor and were former serfs or slaves of a white minority. It should be obvious, even to you that this kind of minority is very vulnerable to having their political powers stripped from them (and possibly rightly so to some extent). This is a very exceptional circumstance, which you are holding up as the norm of how a consociational government would fare in Africa.

Do you think most African countries will be setup to give white folks half of the representation of the Senate? Obviously, you have not bothered to think through your example.

Well if this is your point, I did ignore it for two reasons. The first is that you failed to make it or develop it. You failed to articulate it. Secondly, what is your basic point here, that there are no potential leaders in Africa? Aside from that being a rather foolhardy and ignorant statement to make, it is essentially a useless one. If there are no worthy African leaders then we can do nothing and Africa is lost. Is that what you are saying? You would be advocating defeatism.

Resources must be parsed out one way or the other, consociation or no consociation. How is it that you figure that a consociational government would have control of the food supply and deprive the country of its water? In any case, if you have a portfolio of cabinet ministers. Let's say Tribes 1, 2 and 3 and there are three resources, Food, Water and Coal. Each group needs all three resources, so if all tribes get one minister in charge of one resoruce then they have to bargain and collaborate so that they each trade with each other those resources so that each tribe gets a portion of all three resources. That's how it works basically in theory.

Hehe, for you all your supposed knowledge, you couldn't even figure this out.

So far, you've only showed that you have no understanding of the term here (consociational government) and that you failed to understand the two examples of Liberia and Zimbabwe which you spoke. I could be wrong, perhaps you are just ignorant of them. In any case, by all means, repeat your demonstration of making me look a fool. I know that in practice this only means you putting on the dunce cap.

Well I suppose for you it is difficult for you to articulate your reasons for your beliefs. I don't have as much trouble. I don't see your failure to be knowledgeable of what you are talking about, your failure to understand the concepts to being discussed, your failure to articulate yourself, as making me look like an idiot. That's what it does to you. Don't worry about making me look like an idiot. You should be worried about preventing making you look like an idiot. It almost seems intentional.


WEB

This is something I mentioned after I brought forth my primary comment on this thread: that of consociationalism. Countries need not have a new form of government forced upon them. That's not what I claimed. You were the one to bring up outside forms of coercion, I merely responded to that. I did not initiate talks of it. You did.

Is Africa doomed??
Nowhere in my first metion of consociationalism is there any mention of the US coming in there to install it. I talked about it later, but you had already assumed force first, even where I had not mentioned it. My comment to which you replied did not imply the use of force, as I told you before.

Actually, that's what I asked you. You have merely repeated my question back to me, instead of answering it. I raised the point in the above post and you raised a very vague and empty criticism of it. I asked you if you had any substantive criticism. You say that I am behind the 8 ball, but you are wrong on your facts, and you haven't even mastered the art of basic communication or logic.

You are assuming that the future must follow the same route as the past. The burden is on you to prove that the future must follow the past. Given that things have changed from the past (we no longer have slavery, we don't have territories, etc) things have demonstrably changed. If you are skeptical, the burden is on you. Especially, since you failed to given any reasons for your disagreement initally.

Addressed in the previous post.

This statement is vague as before. You expect me to develop your argument for you, I guess. Perhaps you're just lazy.

lol Sorry, I don't agree. Feel free to bring out your big guns, whenever you're ready.


WEB

Well, it's your theory, not mine. I have stated that countries are too selfish to go solve anything in Africa. I don't have much confidence in the UN. You present some facts about China's oil connection with Africa. Well perhaps you are also aware that China support a policy of non-intereference in the domestic policies of African nations (or any other nations for that matter).

This is why I favor more of the coalition of the willing approach. It's more realistic, since you probably cannot gain the kind of consensus that is necessary for the UN to do anything.

I believe that any force that will be used to do any nation-building in Africa will have to come about as a response to a disaster (i.e. Somalia, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sudan, etc). That will be the time for the US to come in and do a regime change and setup a democracy. Hopefully, there will be a coalition of the willing who would support such an endeavour. However, given how Clinton ran away in Somalia, would not call a genocide a genocide in Rwanda, Bush did nothing for Sudan, and Kerry didn't have much of a different plan, I find force to be a realistically unlikely scenario.

More likely scenarios involve the use of "soft power" of diplomacy and economics to pressure and undermine dictatorships. You see how stupid it was for you to go and assume? If only you had bothered to ask.

No doubt. I know the US has supported bad guys in Africa and around the world to fight the Cold War. Oh right, you thought you were telling me something.

Actually, I believe it was the Nixon trip to China and the US-Sino alliance against the Soviets that made that happen.

What happens if there is no "careful planning and strict control on foreign influence?" What's the danger? This is what I was talking about articulating your reasoning.

I didn't see any connection with our government when I read up on Mugabe. There was some diplomatic mission there, that counts as a "connection?" Or is there something more?

Well he's a homegrown despot and that's what happens when people around the world don't get involved in corrupt and tyrannical leaders.

A space for me to get out. Oh, I'm sorry I thought you were at my feet. But OK, you say you're not. Be direct, JHC. I'm looking forward to it. Tell me of your "very good reason."


WEB

Oh, so because I have not lost my mind in a fit of paranoia, which you have been acting out here, that means that I don't generally care about Africa? Judging by your pretenses of being knowledgeable, but only revealing error and nonsense, it's clear that you are not capable of being sincere. But enough of that. Let's see if there's anything of merit in the rest of this post.

Oh, I'm sorry, I don't go for the Joao Da Silva school of lazy and ignorant discourse, which you apparently hold an advanced degree in. I have heard of Malthus, but again, your failure to elaborate is your own fault.

Well two folks thought that, one of whom I don't think much of. In any case, it's really not relevant. Once again, you can only provide innuendo instead of presenting a straightfoward argument. Typical.

That may very well be, however it may yet workout for the Iraqi people, who were already suffering under Saddam.

WRT the situation in Africa, it is in a fairly non-strategic position, and I don't think there's much to exploit there (with the exception of Sudan and Nigeria's oil, not saying that this is a complete list of strategic resources either).

Well if you were savvy you would have realized that the US is the muscle behind most world organizations. NATO authorized action against Serbia, the US went in. Same for Iraq 91'. It would likely be the US boots on the ground doing this sort of work, even under an international framework. You ASSUMED that I would want to exclude international participation instead of asking if I wanted to do that, and thus made an ass of yourself, just like the saying goes about ASSuming.


WEB

@WEB
The thread question regards multiple problems in multiple countries. The solution of shared power type governance has been put forward by yourself.

What country were you targeting? Or at least what general area?
South Africa is already on it's way to recovery - WITH a power sharing government.
Botswana doesn't really seem to need any help governing but has the highest rate of AIDS in the world.
As you progress up the East coast of the continent things immediately fall apart with Zimbabwe, Mugabe's mess. Certainly he faced a different time and different circumstances. The power sharing agreement didn't work for a couple of reasons: bitter history, deterioration of food resources, no international interest, (they had, after all, declared and received independence), and Mugabe had no idea what he was doing.
I have to break here. I'll come back.

This is going to take a long time WEB. I hope you persist because you want to discuss Africa and not just to get the last word.

__________________
...the government...is caving in...with their specious arguments couched in the...language of civil rights law, and that the churches ... likewise crumbling to...rhetoric which is nothing but heretical sophistry -- ~F Phelps
Platitudes like the one you offer are no different - and no less incorrect - than the jackass part-time Christian who says, "I'm going to heaven because I'm nice to people." It so misses the point.~Impugn